Yahtzee's job is to inform you on whether or not you'll like a game. Occasionally he'll say 'recommended' or 'stay away', but most of the time, he just shares his perspective on several aspects of the game and leaves you to decide whether or not that sounds like a good game to you.

For example, if you never heard anything about this game and just now watched this review, you would now know the basis premise of the game, the general story, the gameplay, and the quality of the story; that it's presented well, but ultimately safe and predictable.

That last part is Yahtzee's own opinion, of course, but that's the point; having his own opinion is what separates him from the countless hundreds of other game reviewers, mechanically designating their number scores like the robots that they are.

Krossbo:@Zachary: So basically, what you're trying to say is we shouldn't act surprised if Yahtzee bashes a game I or someone else likes since that's more or less his job.

Zachary is simplifying half the thread's rebuttals so he can cover them with that one blanket incorrect statement.

When the main reason why most people are 'surprised' is because Yahtzee gave Bioshock:infinite, Spec ops: the line and (to some extent) the walking dead positive reviews.

Those games covered the morality of the protagonist in their own ways, Something that Yahtzee is keen to point out when reviewing those games. When it comes to TLOU he simplifies it to 'well I didn't quite like Joel-he killed a lot of people=bad'. Whilst that was the kind of the point.If Yahtzee (when talking about spec ops:the line) had said, well I didn't quite like Konrad after he killed those people so the game is stupid he would of missed the point but at least he would of been consistent here.Or if Yahtzee was criticising the execution of said theme..then that also would not of been hypocritical. Except he just pretended certain story elements and themes were not there.He goes on to downplay how the types of 'zombies' effect the gameplay but Bioshock:Infinite gets a pass even though you're shooting everyone in the face FPS trope style...but omg you can use your left hand for vigors...that pretty much all do the same thing.

He Makes a big deal Complaining about the AI being stupid at times...but every bad guy in bioshock infinite pretends Elizabeth is not even there...even though they are after her. Even Ico got that right.

There are so many area's you can criticise TLOU on but Yahtzee was too focused on uncharted and was probably annoyed it was a console exclusive

i don't usually get bothered by when Yahtzee tears apart a game but hes definitely not giving this game a fair video. Last of Us is a marvel of story telling, visual design, and combat. Each encounter is a struggle to survive and the game looks gorgeous. The characters don't get dehumanized as much as they become monsters like everyone they've killed, especially Joel. His actions at the end of the game make everyone who has died along the way meaningless. I strongly recommend everyone play this game and not let this video tarnish the games image. As an Xbox fan i wish this game was on my console.

Here is a game where you have bullet-sponge enemies, even on low difficulties, and when they die they don't give up much if any ammo yet they happily shoot the day away.

I get that the stealth mechanic is a core part of the game, but I like being stealthy as an option rather than being forced into it.

I get why a 2x4 thats been lying around for 20 years breaks after a few hits but why does a crowbar break after 6 hits. I could hit a hundred people with a crowbar and more likely than the crowbar breaking would be my arms falling off.

Also, I have a giant fucking backpack. Why can't I load more than 18 bullets into it?

Oh, and he didn't touch on the fact that it has the worst save system in video game history.- It autosaves regularly but you never know where- manual saves become the default save (once again it reverts to the last savable area) and gets overwritten if you don't make another one.- loading a save will sometimes screw you into firefights where you were content just sneaking through.

Zombies are one of the most boring monster/creature designs every created. They're just messed up looking humans that sort of wonder around and then wander towards you while making growling noises. Nothing is being done here to make them interesting; I don't give a shit if the Last of Us calls them "infected" and uses a fungus as the explanation for their existence. You know what else uses the word "infected?" Every zombie video game and movie ever. Everything everywhere ever calls zombies "infected" and as if that designation automagically makes them different. And every piece of zombie media adds some little spin like a fungus or magic or a virus or whatever. I don't care what the wiki entry for your zombie story says about the biology and origins of zombies; what matters is the actual tangible on screen execution. If you're still fighting slightly rough looking humans that wonder around & then wander towards you, then you've got standard boring zombies. Oh, The Last of Us has zombies with cauliflower on their faces and there's something about them still being human and just controlled by the fungus. Well, they still just look like slightly messed up humans and their behavior still consists of moping around making monster noises and occasionally wondering towards you in order to bite your neck. Gee, that's so different from all the other zombie stories where they do the same exact thing.

It's bad enough that every shooter nowadays has only 2 or 3 enemy types, usually being the "normal man with regular gun" and "regular man with normal riot shield" types but now everything has the same "wonder around & lunge for your throat while growling zombie man" enemy type. Compare this to all the strange alien designs from Half Life 1, or all the weird supernatural creatures from Thief: The Dark Project, or all the interesting concepts for aliens, creatures, undead monsters, and so on from old games back when video games where allowed to have more than 2 or 3 types of enemy and settings other than "Plain Jane gritty realistic apocalyptic war zone/post apocalyptic land." A lot of them had a zombie enemy, but then they had a huge assortment of other, more interesting monsters. Now everything is just "man with gun" and "zombie man who stands around and then walks or runs towards you while making a growling noise."

Look at what Resident Evil 4 did to the zombie theme: it got rid of it entirely and replaced it with something that's actually varied and interesting. You start off with sinister villagers that show far more unpredictable behavior than zombies, and as the game progresses they start mutating and transforming in all kinds of unexpected, increasingly weird ways. You get a ramp up of increasingly more odd monster types and you never know what the game is going to throw at you next. Now what does The Last of Us Do? Oh, the zombies have mold on them and they make clicking noises and there's something about them still being human under the cauliflower mask. Now what do they actually do on screen? They mope around and then mope towards you to bite your throat when they see you. The same exact thing the zombies do in the roughly seven thousand trillion other zombie games that have been released in the past 5 years alone.

Unfortunately, most of the games people make a fuss about don't fit your excuses, so I think that falls a little flat.

Regardless, simply because he doesn't like something doesn't mean he's dishonest about it. It's quite possible that he does not believe these elements everyone thinks work so well do so. I know, that would be a complete and utter shocker, wouldn't it?

Also, I actually think you're kind of proving my point a little. EVERYONE and their brother accuses Yahtzee of not playing (game I like), because he missed the point of (game I like) or didn't accurately describe (section of (game I like)), or because he didn't do something in (game I like) the right way. In the end, he comes off as remarkably consistent, because he always misrepresents games. Even games he likes.

By these standards, Yahtzee probably hasn't played any games. Even the ones he praises.

Or, possibly he could just hate Naughty Dog that much, but there's no actual basis to assume this game got worse treatment. Especially since your accusations ALWAYS come up with (game I like).

Edit: incidentally, Sleeping Dogs was one of my favourite games of 2012. Now, this is partially because I came across so fe games in 2012 I really liked, but it's got some pretty solid elements. I am very much pro-Sleeping Dogs. When I went back and looked at the review, I noted quite a few inaccuracies within what Yahtzee said. It's possible he didn't play the game, or maybe he's just "teh bias" against games without jet packs or something.

Or maybe he just didn't like a game I liked.

Further, he raised some legit criticism. And he seems to here, as well. TLOU may not try and make the main characters out to be heroes, but you'd get that impression from a lot of the promotional material. You could easily carry that into the game, because it's really not all that unreasonable.

I definitely agree, it is probably close to what happened, but I've NEVER before, seen an episode of the show where he criticizes a game deliberately falsely, as in using some fully incorrect / incomplete information. Someties I get that he exaggerates for the sake of teh funz, but I had personally never seen this. Again, I have myself done some profound criticism of the game, and many of the systems that i feel make it less astounding than it could have been but NOT ONE of them is even tangentially touched in his overview, instead focusing on cheapshots, unimportant details and plain false information.I'd point out 3 major complaints he made that are incorrect/incomplete/false.

1- Your AI partners (there is many more than Ellie) are useless and serve no purpose in gameplay : FALSE, you begin the game with Tess, who in fact is a lot more effective at shooting than I was, she serves as a tutorial helper as you get your footing into the systems. Aditionally, a lot of the time you run around with 3 or more characters, all who have different levels of AI aggressiveness. ANY of them can be attacked when you break out of stealth, and if any of them die it is Game Over. Naughty dog have even noted that the more you die and suck at the game, the more effective are your AI allies to balance the frustration, (I noticed that in a section PLAYING Ellie where I died a few times, my companion at the time, David, managed to take out 3 of the enemies all by himself, which he had never done before). Aside from that they do fulfill all the AI sidekick tropes, like helping you jump to higher spots or drop ladders, but if all of that is not important for gameplay, I don't know what is.

Ellie herself sees a gameplay shifting evolution through the game. Initially she just advises you of dangers that you might have missed in the environment (as someone creeping up on you), but she gains Joel's trust, the more she is willing to help out. Attacking enemies, assisting you out of choke holds, giving you health packs, and providing cover fire. This is FAR from inactive, and it does give a lot of support to the character building.

2.- About heroism. I personally don't feel that heroism is in any way shape or form important to a game, unless you are trying to cater to some sort of spunkgargleweewee audience. However, as many of us have noted, a lot of the game is DESIGNED, to show both how self sacrificing and heroic people can be, and also how cowardly, selfish brutal and petty they also are when they have no escape. Even more, while most adults presented in the game are shown to be stuck on their fears and traumas, I'd argue that Ellie is pictured as a hero throughout the game, she is a "sacrificial virgin" for the sins of a society she never belonged to, and she is quietly but vehemently determined to see her sacrifice through. All her actions are in the service of saving others, she might have a smart mouth, and be quick to aggression, but she is also naive and idealistic in ways no-one else in the game can be. *spoiler* Her whole SOLO chapter is an heroic adventure to save Joel, she is weaker, but she is determined to overcome anything to save him, her resolve never falters in the slightest.

3.- About the devaluation of human life. Again this is kind of stupid, but as he points out there is a clear paranoia, its not that they don't, in fact people value human life A LOT, so much that they tend to be scared of anything outside their structured organisation (explaining Joel's unwillingness to take the job when first offered to him). Moreover, I'd like to note that although the military does kill Joel's daughter 15 mins into the game, beyond that the military does not seem to be a psychotic murderous regime, but instead, a force trying to keep control of a situation that is clearly beyond their grasp. The conflict is that there are many shards of different ideologies.. and the main characters are transgressing the social order, creating chaos. INSTEAD his observation is at most a superficial assessment, everyone is killing everyone, really? this isn't an informed view on the presentation of the game, not even close.

etc.- there are many other inaccuracies:-the fact that the "super zombie's" attack which I assume is the clicker instant kill, is only really unavoidable at the very start of the game, since the upgrades allow you to counter it later.-the concept that the clicker is the "super zombie" when the Bloater appears 1/4 into the game, and -that- is the only one that is considerable as a super zombie.-There are rarely any highly scripted set pieces, sure, the game is linear, but most of the action is organic and give direct control over the character. ( for the record, I have seen this game receive a description of survival horror more than action adventure).-Smoke bombs are useless: Yeah they are useless against the infected because -they are blind- they are quite useful in specific situations against human enemies particularly in higher difficulties. The point being that you use them WHEN you DON'T have many other methods to take out enemies quickly, NOT as an alternative to shooting them in the head. (Just to note, This visible / audible factor is impressively well managed and works as an excellent game design mechanic throughout the game).-I don't even know what he means about the AI... most enemies / allies are kill-able by any attack provided the timing is right. You CAN interrupt their attacks as well.. and they are NEVER invulnerable... I seriously don't understand what game he played there.-The gameplay criticism is really strange, the game makes a lot of specific decisions (why cant you take more than 3 health packs at a time? why do weapons break? etc etc..) that are quite clearly gameplay balancing choices, and immersion / narrative enhancing choices. All games make these abstraction decisions, and in that sense the choices in TLOU DO complement the theme, feel and general style of the game quite well. Sure some weapons go un-used, but (for example) I rarely ever use shotguns in ANY game, at least this one was smart enough to make me cycle through most of my inventory...

SO... That.. yeah it might seem that I'm being nitpicky, but he clearly did not provide the usual insight that we have come to expect ( reminds me of some of the lazier episodes )In fact a lot of it seems as if he played the demo, and then read the spoilerific walkthough to the ending, which I suppose is in line with the previous thought... (C'mon, he doesn't even take a piss at how funny it is that almost all the supporting cast seems to have been created by commission of the UN for respecting all racial and ideological differences, and they still end up either killed or abandoned)

... to be honest, I have been growing detached of his critique lately (not just about this game)... I used to think that he had some interesting insight on game design and overall narrative, but now I'm starting to think he really is just throwing in cynicism for the sake of it. Taking sides and criticizing for reasons that aren't even remotely connected to the core of a game.

I know, I know, if he doesn't like it, too bad... No-one is entitled to someone else liking the same things one does... It's just that I remember when I came to ZP because I was bored of how nonobjective general reviewers were... how they failed to observe the things that were truly important about a game... but now it seems the tables have turned.

Krossbo:@Zachary: So basically, what you're trying to say is we shouldn't act surprised if Yahtzee bashes a game I or someone else likes since that's more or less his job.

We probably should display at least a modicum of pattern recognition. I'm not sure that I would say "because it's his job," but it's what he does. And note, it's something that we informed and conditioned as the viewing audience. People did complain when he actually did a couple popular reviews early on, something he commented on and then went back into this routine. This is what the viewers ostensibly want, so it's a touch shocking when people immediately complain when it's their turn on the hot seat.

More so when they're begging him to review it.

I'm not against criticising him, for the record, no matter what Shinji might claim. I'm not against arguing with his points, either. I'm not above it, either.

Incidentally, quoting is a better way to catch my attention than douchetags or @symbols, as I'll actually see it (I caught this one by chance replying to someone else). Just a heads up. I mean, assuming you do want an answer.

1- Your AI partners (there is many more than Ellie) are useless and serve no purpose in gameplay : FALSE

Try and keep your complaints to the things he actually said. He mentions specifically Ellie for a pretty big reason: she's supposed to be a compulsory character. He then addresses a specific part of the gameplay, stealth. I mean, you point out that if yuo break out of stealth it's game over, but he's pretty damn explicit and that goes beyond the scope.

spunkgargleweewee

Please don't ever use that line again.

However, the thing here is that a lot of people are really divided on the intent here. Some are saying hey're not supposed to be heroes, some are saying what you're saying, and some are saying "trout sammich." I don't know why, but they're everywhere.

I'd say it probably is open to interpretation because this is the kind of thing Naughty Dog sucks at. Not the entire game, but certain elements, like establishing someone as likeable. We're ostensibly supposed to cheer for Drake, but I find Zelda's Navi to be preferable. But I digress.

The issue then is that the game was promoted with the main characters as heroic or sympathetic characters quite a bit, and a lot of people who have played through the game thoroughly disagree with that notion because they come off as monstrous. Yahtzee's conclusions are not really inaccurate, as we get back to the "interpretation" thing above. there appears to be no true interpretation here (barring word of God, and even then that doesn't necessarily mean the other side is lying or misleading), so it's hard to really call it incorrect or false.

3.- About the devaluation of human life. Again this is kind of stupid, but as he points out there is a clear paranoia, its not that they don't, in fact people value human life A LOT, so much that they tend to be scared of anything outside their structured organisation

I think he was just making jokes about this, personally, as the sheer amount of murder is rather comical in the context we're given.

-the fact that the "super zombie's" attack which I assume is the clicker instant kill, is only really unavoidable at the very start of the game, since the upgrades allow you to counter it later.

Just because you CAN get around it doesn't mean any given person wasn't dying from it.

-the concept that the clicker is the "super zombie" when the Bloater appears 1/4 into the game, and -that- is the only one that is considerable as a super zombie.

I think, once again, you are holding things against him that he didn't say.

-There are rarely any highly scripted set pieces, sure, the game is linear, but most of the action is organic and give direct control over the character. ( for the record, I have seen this game receive a description of survival horror more than action adventure).

Again, I must have missed the "highly-scripted setpiece" part. He did mention its linearity, but he seemed up on exploring it.

-Smoke bombs are useless: Yeah they are useless against the infected

Yes, exactly what he said. Huh.

-I don't even know what he means about the AI... most enemies / allies are kill-able by any attack provided the timing is right. You CAN interrupt their attacks as well.. and they are NEVER invulnerable... I seriously don't understand what game he played there.

He was taling about them being borderline suicidal, which is kind of the opposite. I know that he said a line about being an asshole making you invincible, but he followed it up immediately with a statement about them having the self preservation of a cookie going into a cup of...Milk, was it? He furthers this by having one of the cartoons jump out with "biscuit armour." Since I'm not seeing any complaints about their invincibility, I'm going to have to assume this is another one of those imagined slights.

-The gameplay criticism is really strange, the game makes a lot of specific decisions (why cant you take more than 3 health packs at a time? why do weapons break? etc etc..) that are quite clearly gameplay balancing choices, and immersion / narrative enhancing choices. All games make these abstraction decisions, and in that sense the choices in TLOU DO complement the theme, feel and general style of the game quite well. Sure some weapons go un-used, but (for example) I rarely ever use shotguns in ANY game, at least this one was smart enough to make me cycle through most of my inventory...

Oi..."Immersion," that poor, abused word.

I can't talk about the gameplay for the most part, but little of this seems to be specific to anything Yahtzee said.

yeah it might seem that I'm being nitpicky

It's hard to call it nitpicky when I'm not even sure you're arguing with this review.

This is pretty much the exact "insight" he offers on every game. People really wouldn't complain if it was Call of Duty, though. I'm betting especially not you if you're using "spunkgargleweewee."

how they failed to observe the things that were truly important about a game.

Wait, you turned to ZP because you liked how he observed the important things in a game...Like what? The size of Chris Redfield's biceps? The racism of Uncharted? The obvious bad guy in a game that was almost entirely a subversion or possibly even deconstruction of military fellatio games?

I think this is the first time since Yahtzee came to the Escapist that I've seen a review so far off the mark from him, so much so that this if the first time I've felt the need to comment. Obviously they are just his opinions but I think maybe Yahtzee missed the point of 'The Last of Us' because, with the exception of two points (instant death clickers and dodgy AI) I felt like everything Yahtzee brought up was just outright incorrect. I realise Yahtzee's job is to criticise games in a comedic way but that doesn't mean he can't give credit when it's due. For my money TLOU is the best new triple A IP to have come out of this entire console generation. It had characters that were intersting (in an original way as opposed to the renegade hero image Yahtzee seemed to get) and it had gameplay that felt fantastically well constucted and suprisingly original. The AI issue that Yahtzee brought up is by far the worst design element as far as I'm concerned but, short of frankly ridiculous programming, there was no viable way around it. If they'd gone down the Ashley Graham route you can bet Yahtzee would have nothing but disdain for this game for ripping off one of (if not the) best zombie games ever made. Also, as many people have started talking about recently, there is a serious lack of female characters in games that are interesting. Ellie is far more interesting than the somewhat standardised 'tits-on-legs' model that a lot of games have gone with.The gameplay and characters are what make this game great in my opinion and I feel like Yahtzee's missed out on a large portion of the TLOU experience if he felt so negatively about them. Obviously just about any game can be interpreted and experienced differently by each and every player, I just think this review didn't represent it's source material well at all.

IronMit:When the main reason why most people are 'surprised' is because Yahtzee gave Bioshock:infinite, Spec ops: the line and (to some extent) the walking dead positive reviews.

Those games covered the morality of the protagonist in their own ways, Something that Yahtzee is keen to point out when reviewing those games. When it comes to TLOU he simplifies it to 'well I didn't quite like Joel-he killed a lot of people=bad'. Whilst that was the kind of the point.If Yahtzee (when talking about spec ops:the line) had said, well I didn't quite like Konrad after he killed those people so the game is stupid he would of missed the point but at least he would of been consistent here.

Okay, normally I stay out of these threads because there's rarely an upside to wading into the complaint pool, but this keeps coming up so regularly in this particular thread that I can't seem to help myself.

It's not only that Joel's a bad person that he calls out as a problem. As you mention, there are examples of bad people being present in other games to which he makes no similar objection. It's not only that Joel does bad things. That's not the problem.

The problem, as seems apparent in this video at least, appears to be that, in tandem with the above, Joel is also unsympathetic (meaning it's hard to care about him and, by extension, the plot of the game) and his actions appear to entail nothing resembling karmic retribution in the conclusion.

While this last point isn't necessary to a plot, it's generally how this kind of thing is balanced out: if you do terrible things because you're a horrible person, it's expected that, eventually, you'll get yours in the end. From what I'm hearing, Joel doesn't. He just does whatever he wants to do because "fuck you, got mine," and then...gets away with it. The game just goes "well, okay, I guess that happened, then," and that's it.

Unsatisfying.

To Yahtzee, for whom a game's story tends to be pretty important, sometimes even more so than the gameplay, I imagine this would be rather objectionable.

Again, this is just what I'm getting from the video and other plot synopses floating around. I haven't played the game and have no opinion on it myself. It just bothered me seeing all these posts getting bent out of shape about Yahtzee not liking a character "because he's a bad person" when that's just...understating things a bit, let's say.

Unrelated to the above: @Delcast - Did you really quote your own long-ass post only one post after you posted it? Really?

Meh, I thought I was having a thoughtful conversation .. not just a rhetorical exercise with someone just shielding on cynisism ... you clearly didn't pay much attention to what I said..Never did I say that it was game over if you broke stealth. And occasionally other characters are effectively modifying gameplay IN stealth segments, what he said particularly IS inaccurate and downright false in later segments of the game. but I don't think anything I say will really manage to get through to you.

About smoke bombs, hey did you know that there are more human enemies that infected ones? That they both behave importantly different? that while some weapons are not very effective against Humans, they are very effective against infected and vice-versa?

I used "spunkgargleweewee" particularly because he uses it to refer to military shallow cover based shooters, with heavy emphasis on scripted sequences, I think I can use it whenever I want, it is stupid for you to even point it out.

About the characters, you again are assuming ND sucks at something, I am personally not comparing it to their previous efforts, or observing it as a reflection of what the company HAS DONE, because it is such a profound departure. I am just commenting on this one product, and I think the fact that people have varied opinions is not a reflection of how much ND sucks, but instead how ND did a great job at allowing the individual to read the characters in different ways while still managing a very coherent (if you want to call it generic, sure, i find it hard to find any narrative non generic) narrative. Much like there is no consensus about what sort of character Crime and Punishmet's Raskolnikov really is.

I used immersion because if a word effectively and precisely describes what you want to express, it is stupid not to use it. Maybe it is overused, but it is still representative of the effect I'm trying to convey. Last time I checked, the purpose of language was mainly communication, so I'm trying to communicate, I'm not trying to heighten the literary floriture of my prose.

In any case, I have said several times that I appreciated for example, how open and smart Yahtzee unexpectedly was about the first modern warfare, I find that refreshing, the fact that even if there are many complaints about a certain game you can find some aspects that are interesting and well done, because THEY ARE~! wow. This parallel of all out honest criticism and particular thoughtful observation constitutes my enjoyment of ZP.

But then he particularly referred to this game as a "hodgepodge of stealth, cover based shooting and scripted set pieces"... falling into the action adventure genre. Which is really not even remotely descriptive of the product beyond extreme face value. Once again, not only it is a rather inconsequential label, but he even uses it himself, and ultimately holds no weight. As I noted I have come across it labeled as survival horror way more often, which is much more descriptive of the experience as a whole... but maybe it's just the circles I move on.

About how big the death toll is, is it important that you can go through the game hardly killing anyone? It is a matter of choice in gameplay? In several sections there is a definite intent for you to AVOID confrontation. and isn't that the point enabling interesting options in gameplay? Isn't this a positive? As presented by him, yes it's funny, but it also bares little resemblance to the material.

The thing is, there is such a thing as enjoying levity, such as Chris Redfield's bicep, but there is also a component of appreciating notable traits, such as comments about how a game builds tension, or handles action. One thing does not neuter the other, and if you cant see that, well we are simply not expecting the same quality.

Maybe if you avoid the cynical intellectual superiority outlook, it could be easier. Lets not assume you are talking to an idiot for a second (I assumed I wasn't talking to one, I assumed you -could- actually connect the dots, so i answered thoughtfully and respectfully), and try to understand the comment as a whole, because mine isn't even really a comment on the review of this particular game or the specific points, even if I am giving particular examples. As you almost managed to grasp, I'm making a personal observation of how ZP's focus is getting duller and less coherent, gravitating less towards the quality of games and more towards pseudo ideological statements of the situations external to games. Maybe it was always like that, but that never was what I took interest on. I'm a long time ZP watcher, and I'm a bit disappointed. This doesn't matter to you, this is not your problem. Yahtzee still seems to have a healthy fanbase, so I suppose its not his problem either, but I just feel the show has been gradually less insightful since.. well I suppose a long time ago. But I never thought it was becoming truly myopic.

///this was edited since my first comment was a bit agressive////

Anyhow, I'm probably not gonna respond anymore, I've seen you around the forums and you often tend to be here just to tell people how silly their opinions are... I don't really find that interesting.

Unrelated to the above: @Delcast - Did you really quote your own long-ass post only one post after you posted it? Really?

oh no that was a mistake I think.. did I post it twice? seems it was some forum malfunction.. maybe.. I thought it was a single post.. sorry about that...I'll check it out.oh, there I fixed it.. must have pressed quote and then sent it immediately...I dont know how that happened... apologies again.

About your points.. I can see what you say... But I find that Joel is not really as unsympathetic as this might make you think.I suppose it is really something that you have to inspect yourself. Without spoiling anything I found it hard to dislike him, because it presents some very hard situations for him, and he -does- try to make amends several times in the plot.

Yuuki:Wait, if Ellie is of bugger-all use in gameplay and essentially invisible to zombies then why is she even there?

So the devs could stick a female character on the front cover to score an easy win with the "moar female protagonists!" parade?

Play the game.

Eventually she'll get a gun and will fire if you start a firefight, she helps you clear a courtyard with a large amount of guys in an open area (which makes stealth very difficult,) she will give you health packs if you can't craft one and are low on health, optional conversation pieces that reveal more about the story and the characters, will throw bottles at enemies to stun them which gives you a chance to kill them if you're being hammered by infected/need to end the melee quickly.

She's a fully fleshed out character that adds a fun and unique dynamic to the game. It was not done to gain an easy win with "moar female protagonists!" (which, judging by the way you typed that, I can't understand why you think this is bad at all)

Thank you for also calling out the biggest problem with the "zombie apocalypse" setting - that human life you'd think would be treated as something more precious in such a scenario. What was the line that President Roslin had in the BSG movie/series start? "The only way for us to survive is to start having babies." Nah, 6+ Billion people have all been wiped out, humankind is in serious jeapordy of being extinct, and the first thing we need to do is still killing each other because "reasons."

No more zombie games for me thanks.

Really? Thats the "biggest problem" with a zombie setting? That people aren't screwing enough? You're welcome to your opinion but don't you think that people living on the knife edge with limited rations and little to no certainty of safety would have other things on their minds than repopulating the earth? I mean take The Walking Dead, one of the most popular modern works of zombie fiction; when a major character gets pregnant, they're extremely worried, how are they going to take care of it? Babies need lots of specialized care (baby food, medicine for infants, diapers, etc.) that would be incredibly difficult to get post-apocalypse. Thats not even taking into account the low survivability rate of the caretakers.

Why would human life be more precious in the post apocalypse? When there are limited supplies and lots of mouths to feed people would inevitably turn bandit to ensure their own safety. In such a world where life is short and brutal, why wouldn't people look out for themselves first and foremost? Are these survivors really supposed to concern themselves with the survival or humanity as whole above the survival of themselves and those few who they care about?

I just think it's rather petty to abandon an entire genre for a reason that doesn't even really hold up to scrutiny.

Mick P.:Yahtzee is just frustrated because he is cursed with the ability to imagine better games. Or that he has to keep reviewing awful games as a career. He literally has the worst job I can possibly imagine for myself. I would rather do anything than have to play these games for a living, much less say anything about them in public. I'd rather be in prison.

If you disagree with him, you just have low standards. He is right on the mark.

Says somebody who's already admitted to not having played the fucking game yet. How do you know if he's right on the mark? Oh yeah, you don't. Come back when you've actually played the game and actually have an informed opinion rather than just blatantly agreeing for no good reason.

Yuuki:Wait, if Ellie is of bugger-all use in gameplay and essentially invisible to zombies then why is she even there?

So the devs could stick a female character on the front cover to score an easy win with the "moar female protagonists!" parade?

Play the game.

Eventually she'll get a gun and will fire if you start a firefight, she helps you clear a courtyard with a large amount of guys in an open area (which makes stealth very difficult,) she will give you health packs if you can't craft one and are low on health, optional conversation pieces that reveal more about the story and the characters, will throw bottles at enemies to stun them which gives you a chance to kill them if you're being hammered by infected/need to end the melee quickly.

She's a fully fleshed out character that adds a fun and unique dynamic to the game. It was not done to gain an easy win with "moar female protagonists!" (which, judging by the way you typed that, I can't understand why you think this is bad at all)

Strelok:Strange, I loved the ending, was very fitting with the rest of the tale. Can't believe Yahtzee didn't get it, I found the following on Reddit for those that finished it and did not understand it, doubt there are many though, I found it a pretty good comment on the game. Needless to say, MASSIVE SPOILERS incoming.

... you do realise that "Humans Are The Real Monsters (and the main character in particular)" is the oldest, most tired cliché in all zombie fiction?

Maybe you've been thankfully oblivious to that and could enjoy this "revelation" as something profound.

I did like the fact that Joel gets new superpowers from drugs. That's always worth a chuckle.

Thanks genius I got it, might want to explain it to Yahtzee though as the point appears to flown over the top of his hat. Thanks for the unnecessary explanation of the "cliche" the main theme of one of my favorite books and games as well, Metro 2033, was a wonderful read, once again though not needed, email Yahtzee perhaps? Not sure, might help him.

I dunno, this "review" felt lame, he does have good videos but this one felt really boring. Having played the game, several times at this point, his criticism feels odd and that he has nothing good to say about this game, being that it isn't a shooter with health regen or 2 weapon limit or the fact that you aren't glued to cover all the time, kinda disappointed me. Also, for once this is a game which isn't about mass-murder, a group of 5 enemies are often plenty, and sneaking past people is often a very valid option.

Playing in Survivor just shows how much more handy it is to simply sneak past all the enemies rather than trying to kill everyone. One of the only valid things I think he had to say about it was about how awkward it is when friendlies can walk around and even bump into enemies without being spotted during stealth. But, I still prefer awkward situations before AI getting me spotted, which he also talked about, granted.

I dunno, it seems to me that he should've been more positive about it, it sounded like he didn't even try to be creative this time around. How about a comment on the very gruesome violence? What about the gay sex jokes that randomly appeared at one place? There was potential for funny with this, perhaps it was just me, but this Zero Punctuation was the most "meh" episode in a long time.

LuisGuimaraes:That's kind the part I agree with people not liking the review, the fact Yatzee found unimportant things to pick against the game.If anything his video is saying the game is good by picking story and characters as flaws.

This is what I actually expected from Zero Punctuation, to talk about the actual game, not a sort of "story/characters" rant to make us look int he other direction...

I knew he was going to hit on those obvious flaws, but I also expected some talk of the good and a few funny jokes like normal. This just felt... subpar. It felt like he just saw "another zombie game" and let that attitude dictate the whole review. This was especially interesting because the game did so much that he said games need to try to do, like stealth with optional combat.

You know, I love Yahtzee and the reviews (which is one of the reasons why I joined this site in the first place. But, I have to call out a few things in his critique.

FargoDog:This really does come over as a very, very simplistic analysis of the whole game. Poor and actually quite disappointing review overall. The point of the ending seems to have completely sailed over Yahtzee's head. Especially since it's kinda similar to Spec Ops: The Line (except way better), which he really liked. That too was a game that had way more going on then just its familiar setting.

I'm glad you brought up Spec Ops. I feel that he only really liked it because you get to fight American soldiers (something completely different from "Russians" or "Brown people"). Which is unfair because that's just observing only one point of the game. The rest of the game really was just another 3rd person shooter. Albeit a really really good one, still. It was just Call of Duty with American soldiers.

Concerning this review, however:

1. The reason why Clickers are more powerful is that they have grown more powerful over time. The Cordycep Fungi basically grew out and hardened in that time, giving the carrier sort of plate-like armor (which is something that they mentioned in the game). So, having armor wouldn't make your punches effective, now, would it? You need something tougher like a melee weapon, or gun. This gave the combat a bit more variety, because it forced you to quickly adapt to new situations. Besides that; the Clickers/Bloaters are completely blind, requiring Echolocation to move around. Which gave the overall stealth gameplay a bit more intrigue. "OH SHIT, CAN IT SEE ME?!" is often exclaimed.

3. His critique on Joel is elementary, at best. He's only critiquing him on face value (a murdering, grim-faced asshole? Really?), which is a shame. That's not a good way to criticize something (or am I to take someone serious for only looking at something at face value? Obviously I won't) Joel has been on both sides before (again, something he mentions in the game.) He isn't proud of what he has done, and, has built up walls and defenses from people because he has lost what he loves most (which, you can see why he lets his guard down at several points towards the end as he develops a bond with Ellie, rather than have her become a payday for him). This adds a degree of humanity within someone that has, for so long, been a survivor, and, fighter. They never said he was a "hero", nor did they try to allude that he was any sort of Boy scout do-gooder. Something that was either unintentionally left out (which backs up the Anti-Naughty Dog theory), or, he's just become inept at the critiquing gig. Either way, it's bad.

4. The zombie Apoc thing has been done plenty of times before, we know. It's just that these kinds of zombies are entirely different and interesting (at least to me). A fungus that, may I remind you, ACTUALLY EXISTS IN THE WORLD, infects people through bites, or, as they mention in the game several times, THROUGH SPORES. The reason for the infection through the bite isn't because "of reasons" (sloppy, Yahtzee. For shame.) it's because the mouth has become ingrained with the fungal spores so much so that it goes into your bloodstream. This is evidenced by the bite becoming visually worse within hours of infection. The spores dominate the immune system, which disallows any response from antibodies. This makes the bite look worse and worse. Something that they have never, ever done in any zombie game.

5. The psychotic population only consists of a minority. They only show the raiders at certain points in the game (mostly urban settings). At one point: the raiders weren't "raiders", they were people looking for supplies, but, falsely believed that you were a part of a bandit group that murdered a bunch of kids, so, fearing for their lives, shot at you (University part of the "Fall" Chapter. Pay attention to what they are talking about.)

6. Smoke grenades aren't useless. Sure, not even I use them very often, but, in a pinch, they can be great at stunning enemies for a great egress. Or, you can charge at someone with a melee weapon when you're out of bullets. In online, it's especially dangerous, as you can shiv someone while they're stunned.

All in all, this was a horribly sloppy review of a perfectly good game. It had a good, but, predictable story. Just because we can infer what happens, doesn't mean that it isn't a good experience along the way. Which is something I think people are forgetting.

Mick P.:Yahtzee is just frustrated because he is cursed with the ability to imagine better games. Or that he has to keep reviewing awful games as a career. He literally has the worst job I can possibly imagine for myself. I would rather do anything than have to play these games for a living, much less say anything about them in public. I'd rather be in prison.

If you disagree with him, you just have low standards. He is right on the mark.

Says somebody who's already admitted to not having played the fucking game yet. How do you know if he's right on the mark? Oh yeah, you don't. Come back when you've actually played the game and actually have an informed opinion rather than just blatantly agreeing for no good reason.

That was in response to Yahtzee's reviews in general. I've seen everyone of them. Of the games I've actually played? Next to none. All thanks to Yahtzee, sweet wonderful Yahtzee. I would say what I think about people who've already played this game at its 50$ plus price point, but I will probably be banned. As much as that would be for my better. I can't help myself.

There's no two ways about it, Yahtzee didn't even try with this one. I think this is the first review he's utterly phoned it in with.

He didn't even pretend to acknowledge the survival elements and fact that without civilization most rules and factors are flipped on their heads, the acting was superb and they actually made me like rednecks. The gameplay was adequately visceral, emphasizing the brutal reality of combat and the kind of things that survival would ask of you.

It's great looking game, great paced game, great at creating a feeling for it and I'm incredibly disappointed at how casually Yahtzee of all people, brushed it off.

Maybe Yahtzee needs a break for a while, especially since all his videos and columns are him getting angry about the same things over and over.

I always let Yahtzee trash games I love, but... he had absolutely no major complaints that I can agree with at all. The only thing I totally agree with is the friendly AI not getting spotted, and that only happened because the gameplay would've been annoying otherwise. I feel like he completely missed the point of the ending, too. Even if you don't like the ending, you have to admit there's more to it than "FUCK YOU GOT MINE!" Also, the story is predictable? Name 1 AAA game that's had an ending like that. (I'll admit that many could find that everything before that is predictable) On a sidenote, I'm so glad they didn't turn that into some BS moral choice for the player. Choices can really screw up storytelling sometimes

He also spent a lot of time simply complaining that it's a third person shooter with stealth, while ignoring the actual quality of the gameplay. I personally thought the encounters were top notch. It gave you a lot of freedom and cutback on the handholding present in a lot of recent games. On top of this, the combat fit in with the universe quite well. In most story-driven games it's just kind of there in order to make it a game. But, then again, the PC gamer master race typically seems to think the quality of a game is determined solely by how much of an RPG it is, so...

Because the good things about the game are not safe and predictable. It's fair to say that it has a safe and predictable plot, but when you can play for thirteen hours with almost nothing happening except meeting new characters and character drama, it's time to reanalyze its intentions. It's about the characters, not the plot.

Yes and if I'm not mistaken someone at Naughty Dog did at some point outright state that the primary focus of the games was the relationship between the two leads.

Well what's "good?" I didn't say any part of the game was bad.

I was referring to both the plot and the characters, because I'd say the characters are predictable as well. That doesn't mean they're bad or badly written.

To the contrary, I liked seeing their relationship grow. I commend Naughty Dog for actually caring about how their characters are written (hence why the ending turns out believable instead of the moral choice bullshit that was thrown into Metro 2033).

Get stranded with Gearbox and you can spend the rest of your existence with some sort of witty joke. The idea of a zombie apocalypse has been (dare I say) to death. How about a cyborg dinosaur invasion for a change?

MB202:I think Pop Culture keeps dodging around the term "zombie" because most people, myself included, are getting sick of zombies being everywhere.

Except if that was really true do you think games like The Last of Us and Telltales The Walking Dead would be selling so well (which they are)? And do you think The Walking Dead television series would be one of the most popular shows on television (which it is)? For better or worse I think that the general public's love affair with the zombie genre is far from over.

Well, the fact that The Walking Dead is so popular has me intrigued (since I actually haven't seen it yet), and I consider the exception to the rule. Regardless, I can't think of one person I know who isn't sick of zombies by this point.

MB202:I think Pop Culture keeps dodging around the term "zombie" because most people, myself included, are getting sick of zombies being everywhere.

Except if that was really true do you think games like The Last of Us and Telltales The Walking Dead would be selling so well (which they are)? And do you think The Walking Dead television series would be one of the most popular shows on television (which it is)? For better or worse I think that the general public's love affair with the zombie genre is far from over.

Well, the fact that The Walking Dead is so popular has me intrigued (since I actually haven't seen it yet), and I consider the exception to the rule. Regardless, I can't think of one person I know who isn't sick of zombies by this point.

And what about The Last of Us and Telltale's The Walking Dead video game?

MB202:I think Pop Culture keeps dodging around the term "zombie" because most people, myself included, are getting sick of zombies being everywhere.

Except if that was really true do you think games like The Last of Us and Telltales The Walking Dead would be selling so well (which they are)? And do you think The Walking Dead television series would be one of the most popular shows on television (which it is)? For better or worse I think that the general public's love affair with the zombie genre is far from over.

Well, the fact that The Walking Dead is so popular has me intrigued (since I actually haven't seen it yet), and I consider the exception to the rule. Regardless, I can't think of one person I know who isn't sick of zombies by this point.

Fun fact, in the television show The Walking Dead the word "zombie" is never used. Don't know about the game though...

That was in response to Yahtzee's reviews in general. I've seen everyone of them. Of the games I've actually played? Next to none. All thanks to Yahtzee, sweet wonderful Yahtzee.

I'm tempted on starting a kick starter for the sole purpose of buying you those games now. Simply because it sounds like you've missed some of the greatest games of the last 3 years. Seriously man. No borderlands? No Arkham Asylum/City? No Mass Effect? This post is just really depressing if its true.

Mick P.:I would say what I think about people who've already played this game at its 50$ plus price point...

That they're playing a game with surprisngly tight controls, a fantastic narrative with strong anti-heroes and moving characters along side of a truly tense and atmospheric post apocalyptic world? I think that would be a fairly accurate statement.